Standing Committee A

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

New Clause 9 - Police powers for contracted-out staff

'(1) This section applies if a police authority has entered into a contract with a person (''the contractor'') for the provision of services relating to the detention or escort of persons who have been arrested or are otherwise in custody. 
 (2) The chief officer of police of the police force maintained by that police authority may designate any person who is an employee of the contractor as either or both of the following— 
 (a) a detention officer; or 
 (b) an escort officer. 
 (3) A person designated under this section shall have the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him by the designation. 
 (4) A chief officer of police shall not designate a person under this section unless he is satisfied that that person— 
 (a) is a suitable person to carry out the functions for the purposes of which he is designated; 
 (b) is capable of effectively carrying out those functions; and 
 (c) has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions and in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties to be conferred on him by virtue of the designation. 
 (5) A chief officer of police shall not designate a person under this section unless he is satisfied that the contractor is a fit and proper person to supervise the carrying out of the functions for the purposes of which that person is designated. 
 (6) A designation under this section shall confer powers and impose duties on the designated person by means only of provisions specifying the provisions of the applicable Part of Schedule 4 that are to apply to the designated person; and for this purpose the applicable Part of that Schedule is— 
 (a) in the case of a person designated as a detention officer, Part 3; and 
 (b) in the case of a person designated as an escort officer, Part 4. 
 (7) An employee of the contractor authorised or required to do anything by virtue of a designation under this section— 
 (a) shall not be authorised or required by virtue of that designation to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of that employment; and 
 (b) shall be so authorised or required subject to such restrictions and conditions (if any) as may be specified in his designation. 
 (8) Where any power exercisable by any person in reliance on his designation under this section is a power which, in the case of its exercise by a constable, includes or is supplemented by a power to use reasonable force, any person exercising that power in reliance on that designation shall have the same entitlement as a constable to use reasonable force. 
 (9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the handling of complaints relating to, or other instances of misconduct involving, the carrying out by any person designated under this section of the functions for the purposes of which any power or duty is conferred or imposed by his designation. 
 (10) Regulations under subsection (9) may, in particular, provide that any provision made by Part 2 of this Act with respect to complaints against persons serving with the police is to apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed by them, with respect to complaints against persons designated under this section.
 (11) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with— 
 (a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities; 
 (b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; 
 (c) the Independent Police Complaints Commission; and 
 (d) such other persons as he thinks fit 
 (12) A designation under this section, unless it is previously withdrawn or ceases to have effect in accordance with subsection (13), shall remain in force for such period as may be specified in the designation; but it may be renewed at any time with effect from the time when it would otherwise expire. 
 (13) A designation under this section shall cease to have effect— 
 (a) if the designated person ceases to be an employee of the contractor; or 
 (b) if the contract between the police authority and the contractor is terminated or expires.'.—[Mr. Denham.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10 - Railway safety accreditation scheme

'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of enabling the chief constable of the British Transport Police to establish and maintain a scheme (''a railway safety accreditation scheme''). 
 (2) A railway safety accreditation scheme is a scheme for the exercise in, on or in the vicinity of policed premises in England and Wales, by persons accredited by the chief constable of the British Transport Police under the scheme, of the powers conferred on those persons by their accreditation under that scheme. 
 (3) The regulations may make provision— 
 (a) as to the purposes for which a railway safety accreditation scheme may be established; 
 (b) as to the procedure to be followed in the establishment of such a scheme; and 
 (c) as to matters for which such a scheme must contain provision. 
 (4) The regulations may make provision as to the descriptions of persons who may be accredited under a railway safety accreditation scheme and as to the procedure and criteria to be applied for the grant of any accreditation under such a scheme. 
 (5) The regulations may make provision as to the powers which may be conferred on a person by an accreditation under such a scheme. 
 (6) Subject to subsection (7), no regulations made by virtue of subsection (5) shall permit a power to be conferred on a person accredited under a railway safety accreditation scheme which could not be conferred on an accredited person under a community safety accreditation scheme. 
 (7) The regulations may provide that the powers which may be conferred on a person by an accreditation under a railway safety accreditation scheme include the powers of a constable in uniform and of an authorised constable to give a penalty notice under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (fixed penalty notices) in respect of the following offences— 
 (a) an offence under section 55 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix) (trespassing on a railway); 
 (b) an offence under section 56 of that Act (throwing stones etc. at trains or other things on railways). 
 (8) In relation to a person accredited under a railway safety accreditation scheme, the regulations may apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed by them, any provision of this Chapter which applies in relation to an accredited person. 
 (9) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with— 
 (a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police;
 (b) the chief constable of the British Transport Police; 
 (c) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities; 
 (d) the British Transport Police Committee; 
 (e) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of local authorities; and 
 (f) such other persons as he thinks fit. 
 (10) In this section— 
 ''British Transport Police'' means the force of constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix); 
 ''local authorities'' means district councils, London borough councils, county councils in Wales, county borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London; and 
 ''policed premises'' has the meaning given by section 53(3) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix).'.—[Mr. Denham.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, and I look forward to serving under you this afternoon. 
 New clause 10 is intended to enable the British Transport police to benefit from the proposals in this Bill for community safety accreditation schemes. In this morning's discussion on that subject, it was felt that Home Office police forces should be able to set up such schemes. However, we have received representations from the BTP and the railway industry in support of extending the concept of accreditation to the BTP. 
 Therefore, the new clause will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the chief constable of the BTP to establish and maintain a railway safety accreditation scheme. The intention is that the regulations will be closely modelled on the Bill's proposal for community schemes. However, through making regulations, the Secretary of State will be able to take account of the BTP's differences from local police forces, which include its jurisdiction throughout England and Wales, rather than the police area concept that covers local police forces. 
 Before making such regulations, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the BTP's chief constable, and its police committee. The Secretary of State will also be required to consult representatives of chief police officers, police authorities, local authorities and such other persons that he considers it to be appropriate to consult. It is also our intention that the regulations themselves will require the BTP's chief constable to consult those same organisations when proposing his railway scheme. 
 The regulations will be able to confer only those powers on persons accredited under the railway scheme as are available to persons under a community scheme. Thus, railway accredited persons will be able to receive only the powers detailed in schedule 5 for community safety accredited persons. 
 However, there is an exception to that. To meet the specific needs of the railway, we intend to make two additional railway specific powers available under the 
 railway scheme. These are the power to issue fixed penalty notices for the offences of trespassing on the railway and throwing stones at trains. 
 The BTP has campaigned to be included within these proposals, ever since they were published. It is a public police force that works alongside Home Office forces and deals with many of the same challenges. It faces the same problems of antisocial behaviour and minor offences that local police forces face, and it has the same police powers. The additional support of accredited persons in fighting crime and disorder is necessary for the BTP, as much as it is for any local police force. 
 However, the railways are also ideally suited for an accreditation scheme. These schemes allow non-police authority employees, once they have been suitably trained, to be given powers under the scheme. The railway companies are well placed to put forward their own staff under the railway scheme, and they have also voiced their support for this proposal. 
 Some railway companies are already working closely with the BTP in developing similar, voluntary schemes. South West Trains has committed £1.8 million, in an initiative to equip its own dedicated staff with the necessary skills and training from the BTP to become travel safe officers. Up to 40 such staff will undergo the same recruitment process as special constables, and then undergo a full two-week training programme. They will also be fully trained in track safety, railway byelaws and railway-specific legislation. They will be clearly identifiable by separate uniforms from other railway staff. 
 Railtrack has also been working closely with the BTP to improve the security arrangements at its 15 major stations. These stations account for 15 per cent. of all crime on the railways that is reported to the BTP, but the deployment of security guards was not delivering significant benefits, with the guards merely calling the BTP when faced with a possible crime. Railtrack approached the BTP regarding that problem, and the BTP now provides training for its guards concerning their powers under the railway byelaws, and advises Railtrack on how to deploy the guards to best reduce and deter crime. 
 In both cases, accreditation under a statutory railway scheme would greatly enhance the status of the arrangements. It would also provide those persons with clear statutory powers. The Association of Train Operating Companies has expressed great enthusiasm for promoting the proposals to the rest of the industry, based on the South West Trains model. The ability of the BTP to present a single, statutory accreditation scheme for the whole of the railways would be a significant benefit to the safety and security of passengers. 
 There are clear benefits to the BTP, the railways industry and the travelling public from these proposals. The scheme, like the others we have talked about, is not a way of replacing BTP officers on the railways. However, there are people who, under accreditation schemes, can undertake routine activities that would not be the best use of police resources. The scheme, like those discussed earlier, is 
 about making the most effective use of police resources by supporting police. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Nick Hawkins: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. I have various questions to put to the Minister about the new clause, but I must say that there are advantages to the proposed extension to the railways. In particular, I should like to refer to what the Minister has called the railway-specific parts of the proposal.
 Are there other ways of improving security on our transport system? How was an alternative model for improving the safety of the travelling public chosen in London? The transport commissioner for London, Mr. Kiley, has done a deal under which fully trained and qualified serving police officers will be seconded to travel on buses and tubes, and payments will be made to guarantee that those officers travel on the buses and trains. 
 That might be a better model to follow. It has been negotiated successfully between the Government, the Metropolitan police, the Mayor of London and the transport commissioner, with all his experience of the United States of America. I wonder why the Government are not following that model. There was quite a lot of news coverage on the television on a related issue as recently as last night involving the Minister for Transport, who appeared with various officers and talked about people being seconded as special constables. As there is so much publicity on the subject, I should be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that there is any overlap or contradiction between the two ways of approaching the issue. 
 As co-chairman of the all-party rail group with the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), I have an interest in what happens on the railways. I welcome the fact that the Government have chosen to go down that line with their proposals, and that there are the railway-specific offences in relation to trespassing on the railway and throwing stones or other things on to trains and railways. There can be few more serious types of attack, and many accidents, some fatal, have been caused or contributed to by vandalism on the railways. 
 As recently as a year ago, Nick Sutcliffe, who sits on Guildford borough council but represents a ward in my constituency as part of it is in Guildford borough, was travelling on a late evening train in the winter. The train lights were clearly visible to those outside and the train was stoned. It was clearly a deliberate attempt by a group of youths in my constituency to injure passengers in that part of the carriage. Councillor Sutcliffe told me that, when he tried to obtain action from the transport police to apprehend those responsible for throwing stones at him and other passengers on the train in the middle of a winter evening, it took him about two days to receive a response. Although profuse apologies were given in due course and promises were made that more attention would be paid by the transport police to the area in which it was known that some out-of-controls youths could get close to the track, it reinforced the 
 fact that more needs to be done in respect of rail security. I have spoken about the incident to parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House, and they said that they had never seen a transport policeman and asked what such officers look like. 
 If, as a result of the proposals, people will be much more aware of security provisions being in place from other than railway staff, it will be welcomed by the travelling public. I have had dealings at a fairly senior level with transport police officers and I know that they do a good job, even though they may not be numerous enough for the public. After a distinguished period as chief constable in my county, Mr. David Williams became chief constable of the British Transport police. 
 When looking at asylum seekers trying to jump on trains on the far side of the channel at the beginning of the Easter recess, I was accompanied by Superintendent David Hatcher, known to television viewers as one of the senior police officers who appeared regularly on the BBC ''Crimewatch'' programme. He was advising us on the problems at Sangatte and the surrounding area, which was helpful. The visit was organised by the noble Lord Berkeley. I hope that the Minister can deal with the matters that I have raised. I do not oppose the new clause, but we should like to hear a little more about how the proposals will fit in with other developments.

Norman Baker: I welcome you to our proceedings, Mr. O'Brien. Undoubtedly, there is a need to improve security on our railways. I am sure that most of us receive letters on that theme from our constituents, but I wonder whether the new clause is the right way in which to approach the problem. There is a need for safer stations and for there to be more staff at stations, which is clearly way beyond the Bill's remit. Unstaffed stations are an invitation to vandalism, and there is a need for CCTV on trains and at stations, which was a point that was made this morning.
 There is a need for an improved police presence, in general. I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I do not think that I have ever seen a transport police officer. I do not know how many there are, but they keep themselves very much to themselves, or perhaps they travel in plain clothes. The new clause suggests that there should be a low tier of personnel with the power to deal with low-level incidents, but probably not the matters that are of most concern to the travelling public, which is the fear that they—especially women—may be attacked on trains or at badly lit or unstaffed stations. The new clause would deal with less of an issue, such as someone who may be making too much noise on a train because they had been drinking too much alcohol. Is that the right way to deal with even that problem? 
 The Minister will know of our philosophical problems with the idea of giving private sector employees powers to give fixed penalty tickets to members of the public and to operate as a private police force within certain tightly defined boundaries. I have a problem with that, in particular in the case of the railway industry, where private-sector companies 
 have not exactly covered themselves with glory. The idea of Railtrack, or, even worse, Jarvis, handing out fixed penalty notices does not fill me with much enthusiasm. It may be the wrong kind of police on the line as far as the public are concerned. 
 Having said that, I have some sympathy with the Minister's suggestion that there should be a power to deal with nuisances, caused, I suppose, by young people, such as throwing stones or trespassing. If we could do something to stop that, I have some sympathy with his point. However, presumably the trespassing powers will be unable to deal with the many hunts that seem to roam across railway lines willy-nilly and do not seem to be controlled or stopped by anyone, let alone operatives under such a scheme. 
 I listened carefully to the Minister, and he may correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that his proposal is that people who are accredited under the railway safety scheme will have not only those two extra powers but powers that apply in a community safety scheme. 
Mr. Denham indicated assent.

Norman Baker: The Minister nods. I fail to understand why it is necessary to give people who are accredited under the scheme powers that enable them to deal with cycling on the footway, dog fouling or abandoned vehicles. I hope that we do not have abandoned vehicles on railway lines too often. Several powers seem surplus to requirements, and I would have more sympathy with the proposal if it were limited specifically to railway-related issues, such as throwing stones at trains or trespassing on the railway.
 Why will the wider powers in schedule 5, which seem to have little relevance to railways, be included in the powers available to such people? Why do they need powers to deal with cycling on footways or dog fouling, for example? 
 In addition, will the Minister clarify the definition of behaving in an antisocial manner? As he understands, that will apply to the railway. Will it apply to people busking at railway stations, for example? Some people might regard that as antisocial; I would not. Who will define antisocial in a railway context? Having expressed my reservations about the new clause, I hope that the Minister will respond to my questions.

John Denham: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked several questions around a central theme. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made a wide-ranging but none the less curmudgeonly contribution to the debate, as we have become used to.
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked how the proposals will fit alongside different initiatives being introduced at the moment. Some useful initiatives have been introduced, all of which combined are helpful. We would need to look to the local chief officer of the Home Office police force, together with the chief officer of the BTP, to ensure that local arrangements were satisfactory.
 There have been proposals to encourage police officers to travel on several transport systems. I believe that one London commuter line already offers free travel to officers in its area. The Metropolitan police intends to dedicate some of its CSOs to transport routes. I am not sure what stage the discussions have reached, but there has also been talk of Transport for London possibly partially financing some of the officers who would be supplied by the Metropolitan police. 
 In the welcome initiative to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred earlier, Connex has made an arrangement to encourage members of staff to train and serve as special constables. It will not pay them for being specials but will reward them with an additional payment. I hope that that model of an employer supporting the recruitment of the special constabulary, which will be discussed in more detail when we debate a later new clause, will be adopted more generally. It is a good initiative. 
 There are big differences between the different types of scheme. Travel schemes may benefit from the presence of a police officer who is travelling to or from work, but who will not be there for the entire working day. Although a railway company will benefit in many ways by having somebody on its staff who is trained in the skills of a special, the duties of a special lie in the officer's own time, rather than in their working time. Arrangements such as the one where the Metropolitan police can supply CSOs on transport routes complement such initiatives, but only this one for the railways will look at railway staff who are properly trained and accredited to exercise the functions of the CSO, and that is the key issue. They will be members of staff whose full-time job is to deal with railway safety and antisocial issues. 
 In any case, all the signs are that this is the way that the railway industry is moving. Several train operating companies—such as Railtrack, which is responsible for stations—are already recruiting and developing staff to play such roles. We are seeking to provide a framework within which those different initiatives can be co-ordinated by the BTP across the entire railway system. That is better than having each train operating company coming up with a slightly different variation on the same theme of travel safety. A framework such as ours will help to provide national consistency, which is important on a rail network. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that although it is easy to list a diversity of approaches to this issue, they fit together and complement each other. Where there are issues of possible overlap of different initiatives—which is more likely to happen in London than anywhere else, because of the work that the Metropolitan police does with the BTP—we can rely on the chief officers of the two forces to sort out operational issues with the transport operators. 
 The hon. Gentleman also described the types of distressing incident on which we wish to crack down. I hope that by complementing the force of the BTP—which currently has 2,100 officers, I think—it will be possible for more effort to be devoted to following up incidents of that sort.
 The hon. Member for Lewes asked several questions. One of them was about the range of powers. It makes sense that the full range of powers that would otherwise be available to ACSOs should be available to the BTP when it establishes its accreditation scheme. The BTP's jurisdiction covers railways and their vicinity, so it is possible that issues involving dog fouling, cycling—and, perhaps, buskers, where there is no authorised scheme for them—will be dealt with in the areas that the BTP covers, although offenders will have to fall foul of the particular offences that are set out in the legislation. 
 There is merit in allowing the force, when it sets up its accredited scheme, to look through the menu of powers and to say whether it thinks that each of them is appropriate. However, the evidence from my officials' discussions with the BTP about the possible establishment of its scheme suggests that it would like the full range of powers that are in the legislation, as well as the two additional powers that have been mentioned. 
 The hon. Gentleman has rehearsed the argument that he put this morning about private sector officers having these powers. Train operating companies are developing railway security schemes. It makes sense to bring those schemes into a national framework, and to allow the modest extension of minor powers to the relevant employees, if the chief officer of the BTP thinks that it would add to the security of passengers on the railway system. As I said this morning, I think that we can rely on the responsibilities that rest with the chief officer and his judgment of whether a decision is appropriate. We must accept the principle today.

Norman Baker: Perhaps the Minister can address one point that I forgot to mention. Will employees who are part of the accreditation scheme be subject to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, given that the British Transport police will organise the scheme?

John Denham: The position will be exactly the same as that of other non-police employees if the scheme is organised by the local chief constable. The chief officer of the BTP will need to satisfy himself that an appropriate complaints procedure has been established and is being maintained. He will have to monitor the way in which it operates. The legal responsibilities will be the same as those that we discussed during this morning's debate.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15 - Power to amend Chapter 1 of Part 4

'(1) The Secretary of State may by order modify the provisions of Schedule 4 or 5— 
 (a) by adding powers or duties to the powers and duties specified in either of those Schedules; 
 (b) by otherwise amending, or by repealing, a provision of either of those Schedules.
 (2) An order under this section may make provision for such modifications of any enactment (whenever passed) as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose of facilitating the exercise or performance of any power or duty the capacity to confer or impose which arises by virtue of an order under this section. 
 (3) The provision that may be made by an order under this section includes— 
 (a) provision adding powers and duties to Schedule 4 by means of the addition of a new Part to that Schedule; and 
 (b) provision which, for that purpose, adds to the descriptions of officers contained in subsection (2) or (3) of section 35 and makes consequential amendments of subsection (6) of that section. 
 (4) Nothing in this section shall authorise an addition to the powers that may be conferred on any person under section 35, (Police powers for contracted-out staff) or 37 so as to include (so far as they are not already specified in Schedule 4 or, as the case may be, 5)— 
 (a) any power to arrest or detain persons; 
 (b) any power otherwise than in the company of a constable to enter any premises without the consent of the occupier of the premises; or 
 (c) any power that is not already conferred by or under any enactment on constables or on persons of another description specified by or under that enactment. 
 (5) Subsection (4)(a) shall not be construed as preventing paragraph 1A of Schedule 4 from applying in a case in which a designated person has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence that is capable of being a relevant offence for the purposes of paragraph 1 of that Schedule by reason only of an order under this section. 
 (6) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with— 
 (a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities; 
 (b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; 
 (c) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of local authorities; and 
 (d) such other persons as he thinks fit. 
 (7) For the purposes of subsection (6)(c), ''local authorities'' means district councils, London borough councils, county councils in Wales, county borough councils, the Common Council of the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly. 
 (8) The Secretary of State shall not make an order containing (with or without any other provision) any provision authorised by this section unless a draft of that order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Mr. Denham.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause reinstates, in an amended form, the order-making power that was removed in another place. As Lord Rooker said when the power was removed, we understand why there might be anxieties about how it might be used by a future Home Secretary to confer excessive and inappropriate powers on designated or accredited individuals. That is why it is important that I set out the significant number of safeguards to prevent misuse of the order-making power with which the new clause is packed. 
 How can the Committee provide reasonable flexibility in the future to determine the powers available for community support officers and accredited community safety officers without requiring the inevitably laborious process of returning 
 to primary legislation? In the real world, we know that opportunities to introduce primary legislation can be limited. 
 Before lunch, we had an interesting discussion about proposals supported by Conservative and Liberal Democrat members of the Committee to extend the powers of ACSOs. The reality is that the Government—this would be the same if Opposition parties were introducing the Bill—are embarking on a new development in British policing. The Committee and the Houses of Parliament are making their best judgment about the right sets of powers to confer on police employees and members of accredited schemes. None of us can be absolutely certain that the Bill neither gives too many powers, nor limits them unnecessarily. We have tried to give the Government and future Governments flexibility to adjust the arrangements in the light of experience. This morning's discussion demonstrated how useful such a provision might be. 
 For example, in future we might agree with the Opposition parties that it would be appropriate to give ACSOs powers with regard to vehicles that are used to cause annoyance. It would be a great shame if we had to use primary legislation to confer that power. Equally, let us suppose the Government got something completely wrong—one must always allow for that possibility, although I realise from the shocked expressions of Opposition Members that it is unlikely—and one of the powers caused problems whenever it was used. It could not simply be removed from the schedule of powers available, despite guidance and best practice advising the best use of a CSO or ACSO. 
 I shall go through the various safeguards that need to be in place. The extension of police powers to non-police officers is a controversial issue, so there need to be safeguards. 
 First, any change under the new clause would be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses. It is worth reminding the Committee that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report on the Bill, passed no comment on the order-making power in this clause, other than to confirm that the affirmative resolution procedure was appropriate. It would need the positive assent of both Houses to bring about any change; a Home Secretary could not extend the range of powers available to CSOs and ACSOs on a whim. 
 Secondly, while the clause would enable the Secretary of State to allow chief officers to make a greater range of powers available to designated and accredited persons in the future, the level of seriousness of such powers would not change. The clause does not allow a Home Secretary to raise the stakes by enabling him to use the order-making power to bestow all sorts of more significant powers on individuals. Indeed, it explicitly prohibits the Secretary of State from using the clause to confer on civilians powers of arrest or detention that are additional to 
 those already provided for in schedule 4. He or she will not, by stealth, be able to create an army of CSOs with full constabulary powers, which was one of the issues of concern in another place, nor will he or she be able to confer additional powers to enter premises without the occupier's consent when unaccompanied by a constable. 
 Thirdly, the Secretary of State will not be able to create new powers that are not already given to a constable or other person, for example a local authority employee such as an environmental health officer. All those restrictions will apply to those employed directly by the police authority as much as to anybody else. 
 Finally—this is a new addition to the clause—before making use of the order- making power, the Secretary of State will need to consult police authorities, chief officers, local authorities and others with a legitimate interest. When doing so, he will need to be open about his motivations and address any concerns that are expressed. 
 It is always easy to oppose powers of this sort, on the grounds that they are going too far, we are better off without them and we should get the primary legislation right in the first place. However, I ask the Committee to give this serious consideration. Without such a clause, we could end up in a position in which chief officers who can identify a need for additional powers—say, to add to the list of offences for which a fixed penalty notice might be issued—have to wait for some years before an appropriate opportunity for primary legislation comes along. Similar problems might be experienced in removing powers that cause concern. 
 The safeguards that we have put into the Bill are appropriate to a clause of this sort and I commend it to the Committee.

James Paice: I add my words of welcome to you, Mr. O'Brien.
 The Minister has been very cunning in using this morning's Opposition amendments as a justification for the new clause. I do not criticise him for practising a ministerial ploy. However, it will not wash. Just because we proposed some other powers, that is not to say that we automatically support the concept that a Secretary of State should be able to add to those powers at the stroke of a pen—[Interruption.] I slightly exaggerate. The Minister putters from a sedentary position. I said ,''At the stroke of a pen''. I shall come back to precisely what is involved. The clause was removed in another place. Although he has referred to lots of added safeguards, the only additional provision that could be described as a safeguard relates to consultation. 
 The Minister did not explain why subsection (1) of the new clause is so different from subsections (1) and (2) of the original clause, which was deleted. There might be technical reasons, but there is a significant change in the wording. I do not believe that that constitutes a safeguard. 
 He is right that there is a safeguard, if one can call it such, in that the Secretary of State is not allowed to extend the powers of detention or arrest. That is about 
 it. The clause will allow, by affirmative resolution, the extension of any existing police power to all the civilian categories that we have mentioned. It also allows the creation of new categories of civilians employed within the police force. Although the Minister says that it does not allow the creation of new powers, his argument is slightly disingenuous given that that would be a new power for a police officer. That power should not be conferred by a statutory instrument; it is a major issue. 
 The Minister can claim that the affirmative resolution procedure gives a vestige of democracy to the proposal. However, he has been in the House for a long while. He well knows that statutory instruments are effectively rubber stamps. The only exception was, perhaps, last week's exercise in which his poor colleague, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), was trotted out to defend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Prescription of Offices, Ranks and Positions) (Amendment) Order 2002. He spent two days defending it to the media, only for the Home Secretary to cut the ground from under him by saying that the Government had got it wrong. I sympathise—that is the price of being a junior Minister. That was the only occasion on which I can recall being anywhere near seeing an SI defeated, and even in that case we must wait to see what materialises. 
 The Minister knows that affirmative resolutions go to statutory instrument Committees and they are agreed. As he said, the issue of giving police powers to civilians is highly controversial, not just between political parties—important as that is—but in the country. We know that the Police Federation strongly opposes the idea; the police superintendents are less than enthusiastic and so, with a few notable exceptions, is the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Association of Police Authorities has been very concerned, as has virtually everybody else. It would be a highly controversial move. That is why the power to alter the Bill should remain in primary legislation; a statutory instrument, subject to affirmative resolution, should not be used in such a controversial way. 
 We do not know what powers a future Home Secretary might decide to add or remove. I agree with the Minister—we do not know whether we are right on either side of the Committee. The Government might have made an awful mistake, or several, but only time will tell. However, that is not an excuse for creating a mechanism by which democracy can be short-changed and something major, such as the extension of legions of police powers that are not in schedule 4 or 5 but which do not involve detention or arrest, can be added. It is not right for that to be done by secondary legislation. 
 There were many discussions in the other place before it was decided to throw out this Henry VIII clause giving huge powers to Ministers. It is worth mentioning that those views are shared not just by my noble Friends, but by others. My noble Friend, Lord Dixon-Smith read subsection (2) of the new clause, which only a highly paid lawyer can understand—
 perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) can help us—and most laymen cannot. He described it as 
''a glorious melange of facility to amend primary legislation by regulation.'' ——[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 515.] 
Lord Dholakia stated on Report: 
 ''The conferring of police powers, whether on the police or anyone else should be subject to the proper rigours of scrutiny and debate, which is given to Bills and should not simply be something which can be changed by order''.——[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 April 2002; Vol. 633, c. 876.] 
During the final debate, when the Lords voted to remove the clause, Earl Russell said: 
 ''If this House allows this clause to remain on the statute book, Parliament will have made itself redundant.''——[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2002; Vol. 634, c. 385.]
 That might be a marginal exaggeration, but the gist of what he said is absolutely right. The part of the Bill that relates to police powers is highly controversial. It constitutes a potential major infringement of individual rights because it provides that powers may be exercised by community safety officers, investigating officers, ACSOs and others. Indeed, the Secretary of State could use the same mechanism to extend still further the number of categories of civilians employed by the police. 
 We should accept the fact that there will inevitably be some delay if it proves necessary to change the powers because they turn out to be inadequate or excessive, but I still believe that that should be done in primary legislation. The Minister said that chief constables might have to wait for years for things to be changed, but as the legislation introduces a huge step change, and as the police have existed for 150-odd years without such powers being given to civilians, I suggest that it is not much of a problem for them to have to wait another two years if it becomes necessary to change the provisions. If the matter becomes urgent, and if there is agreement between the parties, the Minister knows as well as I do that primary legislation can be passed extremely quickly. Given the tendency of the Home Office to introduce several pieces of legislation in every parliamentary Session, it would be possible to introduce the necessary clause or schedule to put the matter right within 12 months. It is unnecessary to give the Secretary of State the Henry VIII powers in the new clause, notwithstanding the safeguards to which the Minister referred. It is such a controversial issue that any change to the legislation should be introduced, according to the full democratic process, in primary legislation, so I oppose the new clause.

Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on his contribution, with which I entirely agree. When the Labour party was in opposition, as the Minister knows—in fact, he had the decency to concede as much himself—there was always stiff opposition to any attempt to introduce so-called Henry VIII clauses, which are essentially undemocratic in that they remove parliamentary scrutiny by the House. Statutory instruments are a substitute for that, whether they are subject to affirmative resolution or otherwise. That is
 especially the case in relation to controversial measures. The Minister suggested that it would be laborious, although I do not think that he used that word, time-consuming and difficult to find a slot for the introduction of primary legislation, but that argument is insufficient to outweigh our serious concerns. As the hon. Gentleman said, if Ministers decide that powers must be added, there are numerous Home Office Bills to which such a measure could be tacked on. Equally, if certain powers are unnecessary or discredited, we could allow them to fall into disuse before repealing them when the appropriate moment arises, so there is no need to avoid the use of primary legislation.
 The Minister put his case reasonably this afternoon. I am glad to see that he has regained his gentle urbane good humour after this morning. He mentioned the new direction that the Government want to pursue, quite rightly, but that suggests that the future is uncertain, which makes the case for introducing changes by primary legislation, rather than by affirmative resolution, even more important. 
 The Minister was good enough to say that it was his best guess that the powers to be introduced by the Bill would work. I am sure that he and others have wrestled with the various options before introducing the Bill. It just so happens that his best guess is not my best guess, but I accept that that is his honest belief. I would be slightly more amenable to the proposal if Ministers had shown some willingness to accept amendments from Opposition Members or from the House of Lords, but we have not seen that. Ministers have fallen over themselves to suggest that Home Office draftsmen are the fount of all knowledge, but they have not said that others' ideas might worth considering in relation to this new step forward, which represents a radical change. 
 We have seen the typical resistance that we see from all Government Departments to amendments tabled by the Opposition or from outside the Government's closed ranks. Indeed, the Government are trying to reverse the amendments that were passed in the House of Lords against their wishes. I find it difficult to believe that the legislation is perfect, but that is the conclusion that we are supposed to reach. The Bill will emerge from Committee intact, except for the Government amendments, which suggests that it is based on a narrow focus of opinion. That is one reason why I am reluctant to agree to such wide-ranging powers. 
 I am also reluctant to agree to those powers because we have not yet seen how the powers will work. I tried to suggest that there should be a 12-month review of a proposal that we discussed earlier. Although the Minister saw the merit in having a review, he did not want to be tied to a particular time scale. I am sure that the powers will be reviewed by Government, but is it not appropriate that when they are reviewed for the first time—because the key issue is how well they will work—they should be the subject of a full discussion 
 on the Floor of the House, followed by amendments to primary legislation where necessary? If the Minister turns out to be right and the legislation works well, I would have some sympathy with the idea that powers could be added to or deleted subsequently. 
 The Minister mentioned several safeguards that are included in the new clause. Affirmative resolution is worth while, so far as it goes, and better than negative resolution or nothing, but it is limited for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. One of the problems is that we cannot amend statutory instruments. I wish that the Government would allow Committees to amend them. When one or two amendments would improve a proposal, the Government often accept them, but they must take back a statutory instrument and reintroduce it, because they cannot allow it to be amended. That is a matter for the Leader of the House, but it limits the effectiveness of the affirmative resolution, which the Minister proposes in relation to this legislation. 
 The fact that the new clause excludes the power of arrest or detention is obviously welcome. That is a very important point, which I shall not dismiss or minimise in any way. It is also important that the powers to enter premises should be limited, but that still leaves a huge range of police powers that could be conferred by the Minister on CSOs or ACSOs. That could allow a huge range of road traffic matters to be dealt with. Speed traps, pursuit of vehicles to measure speeds and so on could be handled by CSOs in the future; they do not require a power of arrest or detention unless alcohol is involved. A speeding offence does not involve arrest; that could be dealt with by a CSO. Therefore, a range of powers could be handed over. The public should be involved in the debate; it should not be discussed in a Room on the Committee Corridor on an obscure afternoon. 
 The Minister referred to consultation. That is a welcome development; it is a step forward from where we were when this matter was debated in the House of Lords, and I am grateful for that. However, I would have more faith in consultation if I believed that any Minister or his Department or even any Government paid attention to it. After all, the consultation on the Bill revealed that most police authorities and police forces are opposed to CSOs, yet a proposal for CSOs is being railroaded through in the Bill. The consultation exercise might have been listened to, but it has not informed the contents of the Bill. Therefore, we cannot conclude that if the Minister consults on, say, an extension of powers for CSOs and receives comments that are largely or wholly negative, that will necessary influence whether he proceeds. He might well do so despite the consultations. Therefore, my first reason for opposing the new clause is the extensive nature of the Henry VIII clause, which I am unhappy with in principle. 
 Notwithstanding the Minister's elegantly put and entirely reasonable-sounding case, secondary legislation is a dangerous road to go down. Even if it means more time spent discussing the legislation in the 
 Commons and even if that slows things down a little, primary legislation is the proper way in which to proceed when considering measures of this magnitude.

George Osborne: Mr. O'Brien, I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship.
 I support what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has said and agree with the hon. Member for Lewes. The Minister has presented the clause in apparent innocence, saying that it is important to be able to amend the powers in the light of experience and so on. He even accepts that the extension of police powers to non-police personnel is controversial. However, he does not seem to accept that enabling a Home Secretary to give more powers to such people is even more controversial. That prompted a lengthy debate in the House of Lords. 
 We should remember that the powers have been debated at length in this Committee and in the House of Lords. The minutiae of the powers has been examined through the parliamentary process. We have not always persuaded the Government of the force of our argument, although they have made serious concessions, particularly in relation to the power to detain people under accredited community safety schemes. There is a process of scrutiny, and it has engaged the interest of the Committee and of the House of Lords. Under this clause the current or a future Home Secretary could simply bypass all that and introduce new powers and clauses that would be subjected—as my hon. Friend says, with much greater experience than I do of this place—to little scrutiny under the SI procedures, even if that is by affirmative resolution. We are dealing with powers, even if they are not powers of arrest and detention as defined in the clause, that directly affect the liberty of the individual. My hon. Friend has reminded us of what Earl Russell said in the House of Lords. He also said that they were dealing with powers that 
''led to the revival of impeachment in the Parliament of 1621.'' —[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2002; Vol. 634, c. 385.] 
That might have been a slight exaggeration on the part of the noble Lord, but as a history graduate who enjoyed his books, I know that he knows what he is talking about where history is concerned. These are serious powers. We tend to be very polite in this Committee, as the hon. Member for Lewes was, and stress that we are not talking about the present Home Secretary but a future one. After what we saw last week, I am worried about the current Home Secretary introducing powers that he has dreamed up, with little thought as to their implications, and changing his mind three days later. 
 There are no real safeguards in the clause to protect people from the schemes and gimmicks of this Home Secretary, let alone future ones. That is why I am cautious about giving the powers, and not happy with the clause. I hope that if we vote on it, we vote to defeat it.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. We are getting used to the Minister's approach to problems—his mailed fist clad
 in a glove of velvet presented with enormous felicitation and brought down with a clang once our backs are half turned.
 I am grateful to the Minister for his points about consultation. I take them entirely into account, as my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Lewes have done. I understand that there will be no extension of the powers of detention or arrest under the clause. However—the Minister knows what is coming—I am not going to quote from another place or from history books; I am going to quote from the floor of the police station, where I have spent a little time, not on it, but listening.

Kevan Jones: Handcuffed.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
 I shall explain what most worries people in forces that do not wholeheartedly embrace the idea of CSOs and ACSOs. I take the point of the hon. Member for Lewes that some forces are not keen on the idea. One of those forces is Nottinghamshire. I am surprised by the grasp that the average bobby and the average sergeant have of the exact extent to which CSOs would change their lives. That is not something that has just flashed across their consciousness. They have sat down and talked about it at length. The opinions that I have heard are essentially this: they understand that in semi-rural areas such as Newark and Retford there will be a need, perhaps more than in many other areas, for CSOs. They are, therefore, reasonably broad-minded about it. They understand that they can be relieved of many duties by CSOs. They pointed particularly to the detention officer who was in the nick with them that night, and said how much weight he had taken from their shoulders. 
 None the less, being essentially conservative, perhaps reactionary, they are worried about what the CSOs will do and what powers they will have. They are prepared to accept the imposition of CSOs so long as their chief constable has powers over them that they fully understand. The one thing that they do not agree with and cannot contemplate is the idea of those powers being inconsistent. Giving the idea to Joe Bobby that a Home Secretary could change the powers, apparently at the drop of a hat—I understand that that is deliberate hyperbole—and that what he sees as an up-gunned traffic warden could at short notice be turned into a constable of almost equal power to himself does not help the cause of CSOs. 
 Therefore, while I understand the need for powers and I think that police officers in rural constituencies understand the need for CSOs, any alteration to those powers should be a matter for primary legislation. The affirmative resolution procedure, followed by a statutory instrument, is all but rubber-stamping. It would—I think that I speak for the police officers in Newark—be a power too far and a clause too far. I hope that the Committee will have the sense to reject the clause.

Nick Hawkins: I want, briefly, to support what my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire, for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and for
 Newark (Patrick Mercer) have said. Specifically, I would say that officers in Surrey have expressed the same views as those reported by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark—they are not restricted to Nottinghamshire. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the fact that officers in many forces have looked at the matter extremely carefully. It is not something that flashed across their consciousness. One of the reasons why it has been thought about so carefully is because of the enormously helpful analysis of all the Government's proposals in the Police Federation's Police magazine. That publication is always interesting because of the thoroughness with which the federation's correspondents analyse the issues. Naturally, they will often express views that are at odds not only with this Government, but with any Government who are proposing changes. It is right, however, to pay tribute to the fact that the debates in police canteens between officers during pauses in their duties are much informed by the Police magazine.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said—with the support of my other hon. Friends—Henry VIII clauses are dangerous. I am sure that the Minister and the present Home Secretary would not misuse their powers in the ways that some of us may be worried about, but such powers will be on the statute book and a future Home Secretary may be tempted to misuse them. In principle, the Conservative Opposition should always be unhappy when a Government are proposing a Henry VIII clause because it leaves the way open for a future Home Secretary to extend the powers dramatically at the drop of a hat, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said. I do not want to repeat the arguments that have already been advanced, but for the sake of fairness, it is important that the views put to me by officers in Surrey and elsewhere are on the record.

John Denham: We have had a useful debate. I suppose at the heart of it was whether Parliament trusts Parliament to do the job that Parliament has been set up to do. Another place rejected two orders that were introduced under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 on mayoral elections. It is not the case that the affirmative resolution procedure is a purely rubber-stamping exercise. It is an important part of the new clause that the extension of powers is brought within the affirmative resolution procedure. I accept that the problem is whether a Home Secretary in the future brings forward proposals for change, but after consultation and given the limits set out under the new clause, we trust Parliament to do its job and say yea or nay to the extension of powers. Given the constraints and safeguards in the Bill, I believe that we should be willing to do that, but it may be something on which the Committee may wish to divide. No doubt, we shall return to it at a later stage.
 As for the specific point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, the reason for the change in wording is that, on reflection, the first draft 
 was ambiguous about whether measures could be subtracted from the powers under schedules 4 and 5 by virtue of the new clause as well as be added to them. Clearly, for reasons that I set out earlier, it would to enable such activity to take place. That is why there has been a change in the drafting. Why it is so extensive, I do not know, but I am sure that that is the reason for the change. I shall not prolong the discussion. The arguments on all sides have been advanced clearly and fairly. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— 
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 43 - Offences for which a person may be arrested without a warrant

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I have a brief query that I hope that the Minister can clear up. In the clause, the Government are proposing to amend a reference to the Theft Act 1968, which, as the Minister knows, is one of the principal foundations of modern criminal law. Like all lawyers, I am very familiar with it. Is there any particular significance in replacing
''an offence under section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968'' 
with 
''one which is a summary offence'', 
as is proposed in subsection (4)? I want the Minister to shed some light on that, before we let it through on the nod.

John Denham: One hates to deal with such matters when one is up against an hon. Member who has long experience as a criminal lawyer, and who knows these aspects of the law inside out.
 The specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that subsection (4) makes a small amendment to section 24(3)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to make it clear that any 
 arrestable offence, which is triable summarily only, is excluded from the power to arrest for an attempt to commit such an offence. 
 I am unsure whether the Committee wishes me to speak at length on this clause, so I will not go into great detail. It addresses three measures that create difficulties for the police in sensibly enforcing the law; introducing the power of arrest will give them a significant advantage. 
 I should, perhaps, have known early on in my time as a Member of Parliament that assaulting a police officer is not, directly, an arrestable offence, but I learned that that is the case after I became a Home Office Minister, and I was surprised—as have been most other people with whom I have discussed this matter. We address a lacuna in the law by making this and other changes.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister has a lot of material that he might not want to detain the Committee with this afternoon but, in the light of what he has said, I would find it helpful—as, perhaps, would other Committee members, and in particular those who are also lawyers—if the Minister were to circulate in a letter to us the part of his brief that comes under the heading, ''If pressed'' because I wish to understand what is being done. The Bill does not make that clear.
 I do not think that there is anything sinister here, but I would like some clarification. If the Minister is able to say that he will write to me and other Committee members setting out the matter in a little more detail, I am sure that that will suffice.

John Denham: I would be happy to do that.
 The key thing that we are trying to do is to enable the police to be in a position where they can arrest suspects after the event—after a suspect has left the crime scene. They are unable to do that at present. 
 I would be happy to help the hon. Gentleman by setting out that simple concept in as complicated legal language as possible, and to copy in other Committee members. The Committee knows the area where the police are currently unable to take action, and I am sure that it will support closing the gap, as is proposed here. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 6 agreed to. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Persons acting in an anti-social manner

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: We shall come to another issue to do with antisocial behaviour orders under clause 57. I am delighted that my amendments Nos. 271 and 272 and proposed new clause 20 have been selected for debate under that clause, and I do not want to anticipate those
 arguments. However, we have been asked by the Police Federation to raise one particular matter under clause 45, which also deals with ASBOs, and I hope that the Minister can shed light on it.
 Although the Police Federation supports what is said in the clause—and I can well understand why—it raises the issue that as yet there is no specific statutory definition of what is encompassed under the term ''antisocial behaviour.'' All of us will have some idea of what is meant, and the Minister might say that it would not be helpful to have a statutory definition. However, as the Police Federation specifically asked my hon. Friends and me to raise the issue, I thought it best to put the question on the record under the clause, and to give the Minister an opportunity to give his view as to whether the Government have it in mind, perhaps in later legislation if not in the Bill, to give an overarching definition of what constitutes antisocial behaviour.

John Denham: Clause 45 centres on the ability to ask for a name and address from someone believed to be acting in an antisocial manner. It has some read-across to this morning's debate on accredited community safety officers and CSOs being able to do so. It would be strange if, through earlier legislation, CSOs and ACSOs had the power to ask for a name and address but a police officer did not. The clause therefore completes the picture.
 There is wording that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gives the definition of antisocial behaviour as acting 
''in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household''. 
We will, under a later set of amendments, debate the phrase, 
''not of the same household'', 
but that definition is the basis that we are relying on in the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 46 to 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Extension of role of nurses

John Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 43, line 26, leave out 'nurse' and insert 'health care professional'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 228 to 238, 245 and 246.
 Government new clause 12—Persons authorised to take intimate samples from persons in police detention.

John Denham: The Bill already makes provision for registered nurses to deal with the taking of blood specimens with consent in drink-driving cases and in cases under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The amendments under discussion extend that provision to registered health care professionals, who include registered nurses, although the term goes wider. The
 particular group that the Government have in mind in introducing the amendment is registered paramedics, who are highly trained clinical practitioners.
 Proposed new clause 12 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow registered health care professionals to take blood and other intimate samples from suspects at police stations in non-drink-driving cases. Such samples are used for a variety of evidential and investigatory purposes and currently must be taken by a registered medical practitioner. 
 Allowing registered health care professionals—we have in mind paramedics in particular—to take the entire range of intimate samples simply reflects their expanding role throughout many different medical environments. Enabling the use of the entire range of registered health care professionals and not only registered nurses is a practical measure in law to extend the benefits of the new provision as broadly as possible without compromising standards. However, the Secretary of State will have to introduce regulations on the matter. 
 The amendments and the new clause will increase the scope for a wider range of health care professionals to provide services in the custody environment. They will help to promote value for money, avoid delays and remove the need to call on the services of a police surgeon when the practical requirements can easily be dealt with by appropriately trained registered health care professionals. I commend them to the Committee.

Nick Hawkins: We do not foresee any particular difficulties with the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has some important points to make about the next clause, but I shall not take up the Committee's time on this group, because we believe that what the Government are suggesting is perfectly sensible.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 228, in page 43, line 30, at end insert— 
 '(2A) In subsection (2) of section 11 of that Act (interpretation of sections 3A to 10 of that Act), after the definition of ''prescribed limit'' there shall be inserted— 
 '''registered health care professional' means a person (other than a medical practitioner) who is— 
 (a) a registered nurse; or 
 (b) a registered member of a health care profession which is designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State. 
 (2B) After that subsection there shall be inserted— 
 ''(2A) A health care profession is any profession mentioned in section 60(2) of the Health Act 1999 (c.8) other than the profession of practising medicine and the profession of nursing. 
 (2B) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument; and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'''.
 No. 229, in page 43, line 31, leave out 
'section 11 of that Act' 
and insert 'that section'.
 No. 230, in page 43, line 36, leave out 'nurse' and insert 'health care professional'.—[Mr. Denham.] 
 Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 - Specimens taken from persons incapable of consenting

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 44, line 23, at end insert—
'(iii) if the medical practitioner who for the time being has any responsibility for the clinical care of the person concerned objects to the request.'.
 I should say first that we warmly welcome this part of the Bill. I do not want there to be any doubt about that. Many hon. Members will have been present in the Chamber on Second Reading, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) spoke passionately about the issue. The Minister has been in long discussions with him. We entirely support the proposition in the clause that if people are incapable of consenting to having a sample taken, that should not necessarily prevent a sample from being taken. My right hon. Friend referred to a case, and I know of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has been involved, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), in cases in which people who self-evidently have a responsibility for causing an accident, for example, have been unconscious in hospital and blood samples cannot be taken. I do not want to say something that cannot be proven, but it might be argued that the guilty have gone unpunished because it has not been possible to collect the evidence. 
 We entirely support the clause. However, I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member to have received from the British Medical Association details of some concerns on the subject. I tabled the amendment simply to suggest that the medical practitioner in charge of the patient at any one time should have the right to object to the request for a sample to be taken on the basis that he or she believes that it would be deleterious to the patient's condition. 
 The amendment is not intended to undermine the purpose of the clause. It would simply allow the medical professionals to have a say in the matter. 
 The BMA said that it 
''is concerned that the operation of the clause is dependent upon a police constable assessing that a person's incapacity is attributable to medical reasons.'' 
It goes on to ask how a constable who is not medically trained could 
''differentiate between an incapacity caused by concussion, or by shock, or by drink or drugs or a pre-existing medical condition''. 
I understand that, under section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, provision is made to protect a person who is a patient at a hospital from having to provide a specimen of breath or blood for a laboratory test, unless the medical practitioner in charge of his case does not object. A medical practitioner might object if he considers that to provide a specimen would be prejudicial to the care and treatment of the patient. 
 That is a reasonable position to adopt. Our amendment would extend the protection to the care and treatment of a person from the moment that he or she comes under the care of any member of the health team, including the ambulance and paramedic services, and any health care professional who assists in either a voluntary or an official capacity. 
 Obviously, whatever has happened, the health of the individual is paramount. It seems sensible that the individual should be protected by the medical practitioner. The Minister may say that the term ''medical practitioner'' is wrong and that it should have been ''health care professional''. I am more than happy to accept that the amendment may be deficient technically, but we believe that a medical professional should be able to say, ''No, you cannot take that sample because it could prejudice the health interests of the patient''.

John Denham: The amendment would protect a person who is unconscious after an accident by providing that a constable cannot ask for a blood specimen to be taken if the medical practitioner who has clinical care of the person objects. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that reflects the intention of the Bill. The amendment is not necessary. He had advantage over me by referring to a particular communication from the BMA, which I have not received.
 I wish to make it clear, however, that the clause only empowers a medical practitioner to take a specimen. It does not require him to do so. It allows the individual practitioner at his discretion to refuse the police request, for example, if he thought that taking a specimen could be detrimental to the patient's health or if his ethical beliefs would not allow him to do so. It is worth saying, incidentally in relation to our earlier discussion, that the clause does not allow a nurse to take specimens in such cases. We have not extended the role to other registered health care professionals, which was a deliberate act in view of ethnical considerations and the likely medical condition of the patient. To reiterate, the amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988 introduced under clause 50(1) make it lawful, but not compulsory, for a medical practitioner to take a specimen when requested, if he thinks fit.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but I am not yet convinced of his argument. Clause 50(2)(a) states that a request
''shall not be made to a medical practitioner who for the time being has any responsibility (apart from the request) for the clinical care of the person concerned''. 
Although the hon. Gentleman said that the practitioner to whom the request was made may decline to do so, it seems self-evident that that person will be a different individual from the medical practitioner who is in clinical charge of the patient. He or she cannot be asked to take a sample, but somebody else can. The other person may decline to do it, but my point is that the person in charge of the patient should take the ultimate decision.

John Denham: Our intention is that if the practitioner who was responsible for the clinical care of the patient objected, it would not be fitting for another medical practitioner to say, none the less, ''I am overruling your judgment in this case.'' That could cause ethical problems. I do not believe that a sample would be taken under the Bill's provisions against the objections of the practitioner with clinical care. The intention behind the amendment has been addressed.
 I do not have a copy of the specific BMA letter. I understood that the BMA was content with the Bill because we have held lengthy discussions with it about medical ethics. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I shall examine the matter again to decide whether it requires further clarification. I understand the distinction that he makes between a person with clinical care and a person to whom the request for a sample is addressed, but I am not sure that the problem that he raised exists. However, he has received representations that I have not, and in view of my understanding of the Bill, it might be better if I offer to examine the matter outside the Committee.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister. I must admit that I had assumed that other hon. Members had received the letter. I shall provide the Minister with a copy and I am happy for him to read it. I did not intend to create an unnecessary dispute; I simply wanted reassurance.
 While I am on my feet, I apologise to the Committee. I allowed my memory to serve me ill when I moved the amendment and referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. Of course, he raised a different issue that relates to the Bill. 
 I am happy to provide the Minister with the letter, and I look forward to his consideration of it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Use of specimens taken from persons incapable of consenting

Amendments made: No. 231, in page 46, line 20, leave out 'nurse' and insert 'health care professional'. 
 No. 232, in page 46, line 38, leave out ''section 16(1)'' and insert 
''subsection (1) of section 16'.
 No. 233, in page 46, line 39, at end insert— 
 '(6) In subsection (2) of that section (documentary evidence as to consent), after the words ''medical practitioner'', in both places where they occur, there shall be inserted ''or a registered health care professional''.'.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Equivalent provision for offences connected with transport systems

Amendments made: No. 234, in page 47, line 8, leave out 'nurse' and insert 'health care professional'. 
 No. 235, in page 47, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(2A) After subsection (9) of that section there shall be inserted— 
 ''(9A) In this section ''health care professional'' means a person (other than a medical practitioner) who is— 
 (a) a registered nurse; or 
 (b) a registered member of a health care profession which is designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State. 
 (9B) A health care profession is any profession mentioned in section 60(2) of the Health Act 1999 other than the profession of practising medicine and the profession of nursing. 
 (9C) An order under subsection (9A)(b) shall be made by statutory instrument; and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''
 No. 236, in page 49, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(7A) In section 35(3) of that Act (documentary evidence as to consent) after the words ''medical practitioner'', in both places where they occur, there shall be inserted ''or a registered health care professional''.
 (7B) After subsection (2) of section 38 of that Act (interpretation of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of that Act) there shall be inserted— 
 ''(2A) In this Chapter ''registered health care professional'' means a person (other than a medical practitioner) who is— 
 (a) a registered nurse; or 
 (b) a registered member of a health care profession which is designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State. 
 (2B) A health care profession is any profession mentioned in section 60(2) of the Health Act 1999 (c.8) other than the profession of practising medicine and the profession of nursing. 
 (2C) An order under subsection (2A)(b) shall be made by statutory instrument; and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''
 No. 237, in page 49, line 7, leave out 
'section 38 of that Act' 
and insert 'that section'. 
 No. 238, in page 49, line 13, leave out 'nurse' and insert 'health care professional'.—[Mr. Denham.] 
 Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 - Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: I seek clarification from the Minister on the impact of the clause. I understand that if a constable identifies careless and inconsiderate driving that is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, under subsection (3) he will have the power to stop, seize and remove the motor vehicle. He must warn the driver—if that is possible—before he uses that power, and the vehicle's use must have continued after the
 warning. So far, so good. The purpose of the clause is, therefore, to prevent a public nuisance at a particular time, which nobody could disagree with.
 I want to clarify the impact of subsection (2). It states that a constable shall also have the power to seize and remove a vehicle 
''where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
 Is that provision designed to identify a case in which a constable had warned someone that his driving was inconsiderate and causing alarm, and had been unable to apprehend the vehicle because the person had driven off, but had seized it subsequently? Is that the purpose of the provision? If so, it is different from preventing a public nuisance from occurring. Presumably, the public nuisance had ended because the person had driven off yet, under the Bill, a sharp-eyed constable may notice the vehicle—which may have been used, in his view, some months previously to cause disturbance—and can seize and retain it. That seems different from dealing with the public nuisance when it happened. Will the Minister confirm whether I have understood the clause correctly?

Nick Hawkins: I agree with the search for clarification carried out by the hon. Member for Lewes. I also want to explore a further issue. For a long time, there has been a substantial problem in my constituency with youths using and misusing motor bikes in an area that is a site of special scientific interest. When I read the reference to the prohibition of off-road driving under clause 53(1), it occurred to me that that might provide the powers about which I have been in extensive correspondence with the Minister's predecessors for some years.
 Since 1997, I must have exchanged a dozen letters about the problem with Ministers at the Home Office and at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as it then was. Is the provision intended specifically to be a response to such letters, because I know that other hon. Members have had problems of off-road driving in country areas? Equally, we must be aware that there are legitimate off-road drivers and some have permission to drive 4x4 vehicles on certain designated areas in my constituency, where they are not contravening the law. They are also anxious that their sport should not be prevented. Did the Home Office consult motoring and enthusiast organisations before the provisions were drafted?

John Denham: Having spent some time before the jubilee holiday walking the ox drove between Salisbury and Shaftesbury where the ruts in the road were sometimes up to 4 ft deep because of four-wheel drive enthusiasts, I am temped to extend the legislation to cover the confiscation of those vehicles. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not happen, however, because the Bill is concerned about the use of vehicles without lawful authority. It would not extend to the
 unmetalled highways on which people have the right to drive such vehicles, unless a road traffic offence was being committed.
 Many members of the Committee will have received letters from their constituents about such issues. Westwood in my constituency converges on the eastern edge of Southampton. It is one of the last remaining woodlands on that side of the city. It has been plagued by motor cyclists for several years and many other MPs will have had problems either with the off-road use of vehicles and motor cycles or the persistent misuse of the highway in an antisocial manner. The intention of the clause is to deal with that. 
 The hon. Member for Lewes raised a useful point. It is necessary to be able to use the powers set out in subsection (3) after the event, provided that the individual had been warned previously. There are familiar circumstances, such as off-road motor cycle use, where it will not always be realistic for police officers to intervene to apprehend the individual or seize the vehicle, while the vehicle is being used. Therefore, it is reasonable to have a power to seize the vehicle later that day, or the next day, if it is identified in a nearby area of housing. Indeed, it would significantly weaken this measure if that power were not available. 
 The constable will still have to have previously warned the individual that if they do not discipline their behaviour their vehicle might be seized, and he will still have to believe that there had been a breach of the RTA, or that alarm, distress or annoyance had been caused.

Norman Baker: With respect to the Minister, I am unsure whether it is true that someone has to have been warned. Subsection (5) states that the requirement to give a warning does not apply if the circumstances make it impractical for the constable to give the warning. Therefore, a constable might identify a situation where someone is driving in a manner that causes alarm or contravenes the RTA and attempt to give a warning—or want to—but fail to do so. That constable might then decide to seize the motor vehicle but be unable to do so, but at a subsequent unspecified date—it could be as much as six months later—invokes subsection (2), which enables him to seize the vehicle retrospectively. Is that not possible?

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman is right about the warning; I apologise for having misled the Committee on that point. Subsection (5) would allow for a vehicle to be seized under subsection (2), if it had been impractical for a constable to give a warning.
 The hon. Gentleman conjures up the possibility of the seizure without warning of a vehicle many months after an event. As the clause is constructed, that is a theoretical possibility, although whether it is likely to happen is a matter for speculation. However, it is of paramount importance that the police should be able to act after the event, if the legislation is to be sensible. I do not think it would be helpful to introduce an arbitrary time limit for that, as the right course of action could depend on the circumstances.

Boris Johnson: I am slightly concerned that these measures against antisocial behaviour are very widely framed. I am unsure whether a reference to vehicles that cause alarm, distress or annoyance to the public is the right way for us to phrase this legislation. I was recently going around Hyde Park corner when I saw a bright yellow Rolls-Royce convertible in which A. A. Gill was riding, and I can well imagine that many members of the public would find that sight extremely distressing, and that others would find it annoying. Some people drive around in an annoying and ostentatious way; they squeal their brakes, and so forth.

Bill O'Brien: Order. That is totally outside the confines of the debate.

John Denham: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. O'Brien. I have no wish to discuss the restaurant critic of The Sunday Times.
 The hon. Member for Lewes raised a point on which he sought clarification. He has corrected me on my interpretation of the clause, so I hope that will be on the record. I understand the issue that he has raised but, in practical terms, the power in subsection (2) is necessary to make sense of the rest of the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Anti-social behaviour orders

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 281, in page 51, line 32, after '1B', insert ', 1C'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 277, in clause 58, page 54, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
 '(3) The court may only make an order under this section following consultation with the relevant authorities.'.
 No. 278, in page 54, line 18, leave out paragraph (a).

Annette Brooke: I must extend a belated welcome to you, Mr. O'Brien, as this is the first time that I have spoken this afternoon. I am also seeking some tolerance from you, because I will address a series of amendments and it would help me if I could make a few general comments before speaking more briefly on each amendment.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and I tabled the amendments largely because the subject has not received any debate. Amendments on antisocial behaviour orders were tabled in the House of Lords, and it was generally felt that there was so much detail that there was no time to get into discussion on the subject. I genuinely have several questions to ask and issues to raise. There should be some debate in public on ASBOs. I accept that the wording of some of the amendments is not perfect, but I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit behind them. The point 
 is to achieve clarification, and possibly to ensure that some extra guidance goes into the guidance notes when they are finally published. 
 I agree with the principle that antisocial behaviour orders should be weapons of last resort to be used with lots of other measures. I find it quite difficult to consider them in isolation in the Bill. There is a presumption that we need more and more ASBOs. That is reflected in hon. Members' questions to the Minister. Indeed, in last week's Prime Minister's questions it was asked why 5,000 ASBOs had not yet been made. I guess that the Government might be responding in the Bill by saying, ''Well, we're making it much easier. There will eventually be 5,000.'' That is not the right approach. 
 The Minister himself has cited Wrexham, where only one ASBO has been made. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is not present, because there seems to be good practice in Wrexham. There has been real success there, with 1,500 incidents being resolved through partnership working. That is excellent. Islington is another famous example where acceptable behaviour contracts are used in preference to, or at least as part of the hierarchy before one gets to, ASBOs. To say that we must have more ASBOs and legislation to make that simpler is the wrong premise. The whole package is important.

Meg Munn: Does the hon. Lady accept that through using ASBOs and developing practice, the Government are responding to issues that constituents raise regularly with Members of Parliament with a way of dealing with problems that would help in many of our neighbourhoods? The provisions deal with good practice, and are not something that we should be worried about.

Annette Brooke: I accept that we need to spread good practice on tackling antisocial behaviour, but I do not accept that we have only one weapon on which we must focus all the time. To pick up the hon. Lady's point, I was anxious to look at the monitoring of ASBOs because I thought that before changes were proposed it would be important to have a look at the evaluation. I have read that document now, and I should like to congratulate those involved with it, and should like an assurance from the Minister that some of the many points within it will be included in the guidance.
 The evaluation comes up with several recommendations and an executive summary. The recommendations are crucial, but there is one that I will disagree with when I discuss the amendment. For the most part, there is much about partnership work, which I think is exactly what the hon. Lady was talking about. There is so much good practice but, at the other end of the scale, not everything is in place. I want to be sure that we have problem solving and multi-agency approaches, and that everything comes together. I agree that we must all pull together, and that there is a lot more to be done.
 There is a bit of concern about the evaluation, as it admits that much of the information about the impact of ASBOs is anecdotal, and there are few partnerships formally monitoring the outcome of ASBOs. Everyone speaks positively about them, but that is not necessarily the whole picture, and it is therefore relevant to ask questions. I sought your indulgence, Mr. O'Brien, because I wanted to provide some background. 
 Amendment No. 281 would make the part of the Bill to which it applies compatible with the subsequent amendments. It is consequential on the subsequent two. 
 Amendment No. 277 would delete subsection (3) and insert: 
 ''The court may only make an order under this section following consultation with the relevant authorities.'' 
It is important to hold a consultation. Indeed, an application should be made for an antisocial behaviour order. That is the point of deleting subsection (3). The provision in the Bill bypasses the important requirement for consultation and almost gives the courts carte blanche to impose orders. 
 Bearing in mind that the proposal is for the community, it surely forms the basis of the partnership between the council and police forces. Why should the court become involved and bypass the consultation? I realise that an objective is to speed things up, but I do not understand that, and I should be grateful for some clarification. 
 Amendment No. 278 would delete paragraph (a). It is strange to make provision for an antisocial behaviour order and a sentence. The matter does not seem to be covered in the evaluation, so I should like clarification of the origin of that. Offenders should not, in principle, be subject to a double punishment, which is what that seems to be. I thought that the intention of an antisocial behaviour order was intervention before a full criminal prosecution: I have always regarded it as almost a halfway house. Obviously criminal penalties may apply if a behaviour order is breached. 
 I am not sure why both are necessary, and I am unhappy about it. We are trying to change behaviour, but that is wham, wham punishment, and I do not follow the logic of including it. I can find no reference to the matter, although I have may have missed it, in the evaluation report.

Nick Hawkins: I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time at this stage. I understand the spirit of the hon. Lady's comments in presenting the amendments, but she said something towards the end of her remarks with which I want to take issue and which was slightly inconsistent with some of the points that she made earlier. She said that everyone speaks highly of antisocial behaviour orders. With respect, given how they have operated—or, rather, failed to operate—that is not true not only in the House but even of Labour Members. Indeed, one of those who have been most critical of the bureaucracy surrounding ASBOs as originally established is the
 hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), with whom I have debated on several occasions. He has initiated debates and tried to put pressure on the Government. It was therefore no doubt not a coincidence that, having expressed such great interest in the subject, he found that the business managers could not find a space for him on the Committee, because no doubt he would have repeated his criticism. He and I have spoken on many occasions outside the formal debates, and we have agreed that we need to keep up the pressure.
 I welcome the Government taking the opportunity in the Bill to try to improve some of the more obvious flaws of antisocial behaviour orders. I shall not go too wide of these narrow amendments, because you would rule me out of order if I did, Mr. O'Brien, but as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) made some general remarks, I wanted to make that point. Some important matters that relate to the wider implications will arise later, so at this stage I shall restrict my remarks—

Annette Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some authorities—I think that Liverpool is one example—have got through their antisocial behaviour orders very quickly? There is good practice—

Bill O'Brien: Order. We are discussing a narrow amendment. I allowed the hon. Lady to wander around the issue a bit, but the amendment says ''after '1B', insert ',1C'.'' Nobody has referred to that. I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to stick to the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: In the light of your ruling, Mr. O'Brien, I shall not respond to the hon. Lady's point, although I might be able to address it when we consider other amendments.
 I understand that the point behind amendment No. 277 is perhaps of greatest substance, and we shall listen with interest to what the Minister says about whether it would be better to delete clause 58(3) and replace it with the wording on consultation.

John Denham: The reason why the clause is in the Bill and we are debating the amendment is that the Government have examined research on the experience of using ASBOs and listened to comments of hon. Members. Considerable success has been achieved through ASBOs but the system and the accompanying guidance can be improved.
 The amendments address an ASBO that could be complementary to a criminal sentence from the courts. When we examined ASBO procedures, it became apparent that there were several instances in the civil and criminal courts when a great deal of work went into amassing evidence about individuals, whether for a repossession case in the civil courts or a criminal case, and the behaviour of the individuals was such that it would have been appropriate to restrain their future behaviour through an ASBO. It would not be an alternative measure but complementary to the steps taken by the court. That is why we are considering criminal court convictions.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked reasonably whether the criminal court should be subject to the same process of co-ordination that exists if relevant authorities apply directly for ASBOs. I understand the case that she made. The procedure in the criminal court will be slightly different in practice. There is no formal requirement for a relevant authority to apply for an order after conviction. The prosecuting counsel will be able to make representations to the court on behalf of the police or local authority and to suggest that a court order might be appropriate. 
 As the hon. Lady said, the consultation requirements on ASBOs apply only to applications made by relevant authorities. That requirement is present to ensure a co-ordinated and consistent approach by different agencies. The best way forward is for the criminal court to have the relevant information because it has examined the criminal case. Of course, it will be able to request reports if further information is required. 
 I am reluctant to concede a further and possibly bureaucratic and time consuming process of formal consultation with the relevant agencies, but it will be possible to ensure that the necessary information is brought before the criminal court before it decides whether to make an ASBO. It would be a shame to lose the opportunity of an additional way of imposing an ASBO by erecting an unnecessarily bureaucratic tier. 
 With regard to amendment No. 278, it is vital that a community may be protected from the behaviour of a person convicted of a criminal offence without requiring a separate legal process to obtain an ASBO, which is what the provision allows. The thinking is analogous to other provisions that allow an ASBO to be imposed on a person subsequent to eviction due to a breach of a tenancy agreement that involved harassment. I am sure that most members of the Committee are familiar with cases in which a local authority or registered social landlord has evicted someone and that person has popped up in a private tenancy down the road and carried on behaving as he did previously. It is reasonable to build on the court process to impose an ASBO in an analogous way. The route to a court and to a different court—it may be the criminal court—to which the police will take the prosecution, will provide flexibility in protecting the public further by restraining a person's future antisocial behaviour than the sentence that is passed by the court for criminal behaviour. 
 Without such a provision, we will be allowing a category of people to continue their antisocial behaviour, causing nuisance to their neighbours, against whom a great deal of time and money is spent amassing evidence. We will come out of such a situation without a necessary constraint on their behaviour. I hope that we shall retain the ability to maintain an antisocial behaviour order after a criminal conviction.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his response. I was pleased that there has been some movement in the consultation process. I am still worried about the final point to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 273, in page 51, leave out lines 37 to 39.
 I shall be in some trouble now with the Minister because the provision was recommended by the evaluation document and I am speaking against it. Nevertheless, I want the answers to the important questions that I am about to ask to be on the public record. Antisocial behaviour orders are so far-reaching that they should be available only to recognised law enforcement officers—the police—or democratically accountable local council representatives. I shall not rehearse the argument about democratic accountability, but clearly that is consistent with the line that we have taken in Committee. 
 Some additional points need to be considered. Giving social landlords the power to apply for antisocial behaviour orders could become a charter for bad landlords. Good landlords will rely primarily on good housing management procedures to tackle problem tenants and, when antisocial behaviour orders are needed, housing associations will work in partnership with the police or local councillors. If bad landlords are given such a power, they can pose the threat of an antisocial behaviour order as an alternative to good housing management. 
 I have spoken to several representatives of housing associations about the problem and one association did not want the power as it saw itself as a good landlord. Another representative made some important points that I should like the Minister to consider. I believe that that organisation wanted the power, but it was worried about it. How would it obtain the information? It was worried that there was a problem with data protection and data sharing with the police. It felt isolated.

Meg Munn: Given how antisocial behaviour orders operate at present, many authorities use the local council as the lead when people are council tenants, but use the police as the lead in cases of those who are not council tenants. Does it not follow that there is logic in the housing association being the lead when people are housing association tenants? Given that people will be subject to the same processes and the same tests at court, the fact that relevant information would be needed would guard against bad landlords using the provision inappropriately.

Annette Brooke: I am not convinced that that is the case. It was certainly not the view of those professionals to whom I spoke. The hon. Lady's point comes down to democratic accountability. I should like an assurance from the Minister because, even with simplification, a relatively small housing association could be left with something that is difficult to handle
 and not have all the information. I believe that the cases could be different from that described by the hon. Lady.

George Osborne: I object to almost everything that the hon. Lady has said.
 I support the principle of ASBOs, and the idea of giving that power to social landlords. However, if I were allowed one major complaint, it would be that of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath—they are too bureaucratic and difficult to use. 
 Longridge housing estate in my constituency has recently been transferred to a social landlord. On a recent visit there, the social landlord said to me, ''We wish we had the power to deal with the bad and antisocial neighbours, and we would love to have the power to evict them, or to restrict their activity in the way that ASBOs allow.'' 
 ASBOs are a part of a series of imaginative penalties that the criminal justice system needs. I do not always support the way that the Government float such ideas—usually as eye-catching initiatives that are splashed in The Sunday Times. However, I agree with the principle that we need to look at more imaginative solutions. 
 Yesterday, I attended a Public Accounts Committee hearing with the permanent secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department and I was stunned—as were other Committee members of all parties—at the complete breakdown of the financial penalty system in courts: only 60 per cent. of penalties levied in courts are ever collected. As the permanent secretary conceded, it is really a kind of voluntary system; the offender decides whether to pay the court fine, because it is so easy not to pay it. 
 The permanent secretary said that all sorts of more imaginative solutions were being considered. ASBOs fall into that category, so I support them and their extension. However, they must be made less bureaucratic, so that they are easier to use—particularly if they are extended to social landlords, who will not necessarily have all the skills and bureaucratic back-up that are required to introduce them. 
 In my county of Cheshire, the chief constable recently told me that his force had introduced only five or six ASBOs in the entire county. The police said that they were keen to use them, but that they presented difficulties. Therefore, I regret that the Government are not using the Bill to strip away many of the bureaucratic problems that are associated with ASBOs, but I support the principle of extending them to social landlords.

David Borrow: I rise to reject the Liberal Democrat amendment. Most of the social housing in my constituency is housing association property, as a result of the stock transfer in the main council in my area.
 At the moment, if the housing association wants to take action through the ASBO system, it relies on the police or the local authority to take the lead. That 
 might happen, but because the necessary procedures are so bureaucratic and quite expensive, one can understand why the police or the local authority might not give ASBOs the priority that the housing associations and social landlords might wish. It is important that the Bill ensures that housing associations have the power to take action—if they feel that it is important enough to do so—rather than leaving them to rely on other agencies to take the lead. 
 I hope that such organisations will always work in partnership, but it is important that housing associations have the fall-back position to take action. I can envisage many situations where antisocial behaviour gets completely out of control. If the local authority or the police will not take action, housing associations can do very little.

John Denham: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and he is right that the significant extent of stock transfer is one of the issues that have forced this to the head of the queue for legislation.
 There have been concerns about the bureaucracy surrounding ASBOs; that is reflected in research. However, it is important to recognise that very little of that bureaucracy derives from the primary legislation that established ASBOs. It has accumulated along the way. Some police forces generate far more evidence than is required to secure an ASBO. Some aspects of the guidance will be revised after the passage of the Bill, as they generate unnecessary bureaucracy. Once the Bill is passed, we shall need to have a concerted campaign to get across to local practitioners that some of what has become regarded as essential to secure an ASBO is in fact unnecessary. 
 There has been discussion on the consultation with relevant authorities. Sometimes there is debate between local authority agencies—between, say, housing and social services—especially when a particularly young person is causing persistent nuisance. One of the issues raised by registered social landlords is that once there has been a stock transfer they are an outside body compared with the voices within the local authority. If the local authority is not willing to take the issues seriously, the landlord who has responsibility for the tenants is denied access to ASBOs in a way that probably would not take place if the housing department were still part of the corporate local authority. 
 Although there is no requirement in the clause for registered social landlords to take the responsibility of seeking ASBOs, it permits them to do so if the ideal partnership arrangement is not operating. That is important. Everything will be subject to a court test, so whoever is leading, it will be important to make an appropriate case. No doubt the courts will be interested in the views of other agencies, if those views are sought. 
 As hon. Members have said, a substantial proportion of the tenancies of social landlords now lie with registered social landlords, not local authorities. There is demand from some registered local social landlords for taking the lead, and the clause will enable them to do so.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his comments. I do not wish to push the amendment to a Division, because we voted this morning on the principle of accountability, and a Division would waste time. We need all the authorities to work together, whoever takes up the ASBO, if we are to tackle the causes of, and reform, antisocial behaviour. I do not think that ASBOs can work in isolation.
 This morning I quoted from the evaluation in order to highlight the fact that we need the registered social landlords in the crime and disorder partnership. I hope that that will be in the guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 274, in page 52, line 19, leave out subsection (7).

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 275, in clause 58, page 54, line 8, leave out from 'persons' to ', and' in line 9.
 No. 276, in clause 58, page 54, line 11, leave out 
'any place in England and Wales' 
and insert 
'the local government area and persons in any adjoining local government area.'

Annette Brooke: Amendments Nos. 274 and 276 can be taken together, as No. 276 follows on from No. 274. I should like to make some probing remarks on them.
 The clause empowers the police, the council or a social landlord to apply for an ASBO that could be applicable across England and Wales. Presumably, a person will carry that on their back as they move around, although the Minister may correct me on that. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it was necessary for adjoining local authorities to be consulted before any ASBOs were applied for. The clause does not have the famous safeguard of necessity, so we may end up with police forces and local authorities being responsible for enforcing an ASBO that they have had no role in introducing. 
 I should like the Minister to pick up on the point that antisocial behaviour may relate to particular circumstances, and a person might have behaved very differently in different circumstances. I know that we are talking about hardcore offenders, but it causes me concern that a person could have such a label upon them. It could make it very difficult to get housing, and it could force people into the underclass. It is the package that goes with the ASBO as well as the measure itself that concerns me, in terms of how the subject of an ASBO will get support to change their behaviour, given that ASBOs cross local authorities.

Nick Hawkins: We support amendment No. 275 and we can see the point of amendment No. 274. However, we do not agree with amendment No. 276, which would work in a different direction. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole pointed out, it would restrict the provision to neighbouring local authority areas, which we think would be an
 undue restriction. We shall listen to the Minister's comments, but we believe that the hon. Lady has a point with the other amendments.

John Denham: I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 274 and 276. I accept that it is a weakness of the existing ASBOs that they cannot tackle certain types of persistent antisocial behaviour because the offenders move around the country. One group that we had in mind in developing the clause was the minority in the traveller community who engages in persistent nuisance more or less wherever they go. That may involve moving from one end of the country to another, and a stay in a particular area may be relatively brief. The disruption caused may be significant but with no possibility of collecting the evidence necessary for the local authority to get an ASBO.
 Persistent antisocial behaviour established in one area will enable an application to be made to the courts to apply the ASBO to the people as they move around. That is important, as it will allow the enforcement of a breach of an ASBO in local authority area that is different from the one where the application was first made. 
 A more limited scope could come into play when someone is moving on account of their antisocial behaviour from one local authority area to another. As I mentioned earlier, many hon. Members are familiar with the round tripping of someone who moves out of a property after a concerted effort by all the agencies merely to pop up a mile down the road, possibly in another local authority area, and continue their behaviour. In those circumstances, it might be more appropriate to apply for an order that restricts the ASBO to a group of local authorities rather than nationally. However, it is necessary to have the flexibility to act on a national level against those people whose pattern of life involves moving around the country perhaps unpredictably or within a limited group of local authority areas.

George Osborne: Does the Minister agree with the Local Government Association, which says in its briefing for those ideas to be effective,
''there will be need to be a national agreement on information sharing''?

John Denham: Yes, information is important, and one issue that we must address in the closing stages of the Bill and in guidance is the role of the police national computer. At the moment, it does not store ASBO information in an operational form, but police officers who want to check on a group of people that they think might be subject to an ASBO need to have access, either through the PNC or another mechanism, to up-to-date information about such identifiable individuals. Police officers will not automatically know that an ASBO has been issued 200 miles away, and no one will necessarily volunteer that information. The hon. Gentleman is right that it will be necessary to resolve some important information-sharing issues in the successful implementation of this part of the Bill.
 On amendment No. 275, ASBOs are designed to protect the community from antisocial behaviour, which the Government have always defined as behaviour that is aimed outside the individual's household towards the wider community or society. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole did not explain the amendment at length, and I am not sure whether it attempts to amend the antisocial behaviour order to create, for example, a domestic violence order.

Annette Brooke: I am sorry about that. I forget to make a brief comment. I appreciate that that would change the nature and definition of an ASBO. I wanted to attach a question: does the Minister consider that existing legislation as it applies to a noisy household is sufficient—noise represents antisocial behaviour for a person who lives near it, however it is generated—or is there mileage in using an ASBO, which would need redefining if it were used for such a domestic situation?

John Denham: The legislation is not perfect, but I hope that it is getting better at addressing the nuisance that noisy households create for other households. The ASBO procedure should not be used if one member of a household creates a lot of noise that distresses another, which is implied by the amendment. The purpose of ASBOs is to address annoyance, nuisance and disturbance to members of other households.
 An entirely separate debate exists about whether legal procedures that deal with internal issues such as domestic violence are adequate. I am quite certain that that process should not be mixed up with ASBOs, and we would experience great difficulties if we tried to do that.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his comments. He reminded me of a situation that my part of the country suffers from at great length. I understand the purpose of sharing information, which is important for everybody's welfare, including travellers, whose living conditions are a great welfare issue.
 If a situation occurred with an individual—perhaps a young person—there should be supportive measures if an order were imposed because, otherwise, I have a real fear that people would be driven to crime because they had nowhere to go. 
 I have made many of my comments because I want them added to the guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill O'Brien: According to the programme motion, we must conclude proceedings on clause 62 by 7 pm. At 7 pm, I shall go through the clauses. If there is a Division in the House, we shall have to come back to conclude the business.
 Amendment made: No. 266, in page 52, line 24, at end insert—
 '(7A) In subsection (10) of that section (penalty for contravention of order), for ''shall be'' there shall be substituted ''is guilty of an offence and''.'.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57 - Orders in county court proceedings

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 271, in page 53, line 25, at end insert—
 '(4A) If a relevant authority obtains an order under this section it may apply to the court for the party subject to that order to be named by the court in open court regardless of the age of that party, and it shall be for the party subject to the order to establish exceptional reasons why he should not be so named.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
 Amendment No. 272, in clause 58, page 54, line 16, at end insert— 
 '(3A) The court may direct, having made an order under this section, that the offender subject to that order be named in open court regardless of the age of the offender, subject to the offender showing any exceptional reasons why he should not be so named.'.
 New clause 20—Anti-social behaviour orders: naming in court— 
 'After subsection (4) of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders) there shall be inserted— 
 ''(4A) If a relevant authority obtains an order under this section it may apply to the court for the party subject to that order to be named by the court in open court regardless of the age of that party, and it shall be for the party subject to the order to establish exceptional reasons why he should not be so named.''.'.

Nick Hawkins: In the light of the approaching guillotine, which I regret, I shall have to address the amendments quite briefly. The Minister knows that my party and I oppose such programming of Committees because it means that matters must be either rushed or not debated at all. I shall be grateful if the Minister would write to me with any response that he does not get chance to make on this important issue.
 I move the amendment because of a specific case in my constituency. The chief executive of my local authority, with the support of the police, asked me to raise the matter, and no doubt the Minister will research its various legal aspects with his advisers. My local police and local authority were disappointed by a situation, although that would be too weak a word because the headline in my local paper talked of police anger at a judge's ruling. They were very upset at failing to obtain the full effectiveness of an ASBO in relation to the two most serious young criminals in my constituency. They finally obtained an ASBO, although the police, local authority and everyone in the community safety partnership in my area were annoyed by the bureaucracy and difficulty involved. The police felt, however, that the order would be fully effective only if the twin brothers were named and shamed.
 Traditionally, we have had specific legal rules, the basis of which all lawyers and citizens will understand, which state that juveniles should not normally be named. The point about ASBOs, however, is that they are supposed to be different and to have a wider aspect, so that people in the community of a person who is the subject of an ASBO know to whom the order applies. 
 The situation in that particular case is slightly complicated because although the original district judge—who used to be known as the county court judge—refused to lift the anonymity of the two brothers, the police felt so strongly about the matter that they appealed to the High Court, where Mr. Justice Elias overruled the district judge's decision and sent the case back to the lower court to be reconsidered. However, to the regret of the police, although the High Court judge believed that the first district judge had applied the wrong criteria, he did not withdraw the brothers' right to anonymity. Most lawyers would understand that he was giving a firm hint to the district judge who reconsidered the matter that the case should be treated in a different way. Again, to the fury of the police, the second district judge reached the same conclusion as the first district judge, did not take the hint from the High Court judge and did not lift the right to anonymity, but he did so for a different reason. Who knows whether there will be yet another appeal? 
 I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendments, but I hope that he may, at least, be able to consider the matter over a longer period, in his usual helpful way, and decide that it is a serious issue. The local police and local authority in my constituency contend that ASBOs are different and that the normal rules concerning the anonymity of juveniles should be reconsidered. I am not suggesting a wholesale reform of the law or a whole new policy for juvenile courts, because in normal circumstances there are good reasons why anonymity should be retained. However, the strong view of senior police officers, the chief executive and those in my local authority who support him, based on the difficulties that they experienced in that case, is that we should introduce a provision to the effect that, in normal circumstances juveniles who are subject to an ASBO will be named and shamed, but that exceptional reasons may be argued as to why anonymity should not be lifted, introducing a reverse burden. I have put the issue before the Committee fairly and squarely, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Meg Munn: I shall be brief. I fundamentally oppose the proposal. When I was in a partnership that dealt with anti-social behaviour orders, we agreed that the police would always oppose the naming of young people. The reason why we do not name young people in criminal proceedings is well founded. The characters of young people under a certain age are still being formed and are open to change, so naming young people is counter-productive. I believe that that holds good for anti-social behaviour orders. Many local people in areas where ASBO's are applied for know who is involved. They may even have given evidence in a case. There is no evidence to show that those young
 people should be named. Naming them gives them notoriety. That is likely to make it harder to bring about the change in behaviour that the ASBO seeks to achieve. It will also make it harder for them to get a job or to be accepted within their community should their behaviour change. It should be strongly resisted, and the presumption should remain that young people should not be named and shamed.

John Denham: Although I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend and for her expertise in the matter, I am inclined to agree more with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in this instance, but to resist the amendment. The Government's position is reflected in the training material for magistrates produced by the Judicial Studies Board. It says that
''enforcement of the order will normally depend on the general public being aware of the order and the identity of the person against whom it is made.'' 
There is a case for suggesting, as many people have done, that publicising an ASBO is necessary in order for it to have its fullest impact. However, there has to be balance. Local outcomes have not always been as satisfactory or as consistent as we might like, but this is new legislation. 
 As a civil proceeding, the ASBO is not subject to automatic reporting restrictions, whatever the age of the defendant. Therefore, the defence has to ask for a reporting restriction on the basis of the age of the defendant under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, so the case has to be argued from a starting point at which it is assumed that the person will be named. It is different in a criminal case, which the Bill introduces for the first time. In that case, there can be a discretion to lift reporting restrictions. Our view, generally, is that we are sympathetic with the case for there being publicity, but we are not persuaded of the need to change the surrounding legislation. There are issues concerning the understanding of magistrates and others of how the legislation is intended to work. They will best be addressed through training and education.

Nick Hawkins: In the light of the Minister's sympathy for the stance of my local authority and my police force, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 - Orders on conviction in criminal proceedings

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 279, in page 54, line 33, leave out 'two years' and insert 'six months'.
 Briefly, if there were the opportunity to have an ASBO rescinded after six months, that might focus the offender's mind on changing his or her behaviour in a shorter period, rather than waiting a full two years.

John Denham: We are reluctant to make the change, but the hon. Lady has highlighted an anomaly in the drafting of the legislation, so we shall table an amendment on Report, when we shall discuss the matter again.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - Interim orders

Amendment made: No. 267, in page 55, line 24, leave out from 'appeals),' to end of line 25 and insert 
'after ''an anti-social behaviour order'' there shall be inserted '', an order under section 1D above,''.'.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60 - Consultation requirements

Amendment made: No. 239, in page 55, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert— 
 '(1) This section applies to— 
 (a) applications for an anti-social behaviour order; and 
 (b) applications for an order under section 1B. 
 (2) Before making an application to which this section applies, the council for a local government area shall consult the chief officer of police of the police force maintained for the police area within which that local government area lies. 
 (3) Before making an application to which this section applies, a chief officer of police shall consult the council for the local government area in which the person in relation to whom the application is to be made resides or appears to reside. 
 (4) Before making an application to which this section applies, a relevant authority other than a council for a local government area or a chief officer of police shall consult— 
 (a) the council for the local government area in which the person in relation to whom the application is to be made resides or appears to reside; and 
 (b) the chief officer of police of the police force maintained for the police area within which that local government area lies.'''.—[Mr. Denham.]
 Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 61 and 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Seven o'clock till Thursday 27 June at half-past Nine o'clock.